MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101770250 · doi:10.2310/7200.2006.029

From Ancient Medicine to Modern Medicine: Ayurvedic Concepts of Health and Their Role in Inflammation and Cancer

2007· review· en· W2101770250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prachi Garodia, Haruyo Ichikawa, Nikita Malani, Gautam Sethi, Bharat B. Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Integrative Oncology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllopathic medicineAlternative medicineCancerTraditional medicineModern medicineIndian subcontinentConventional medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathologyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent statistics indicate that the overall cancer incidence in the United States, in spite of billions of dollars spent on research each year, has not changed significantly in the last half-century. Cancers of the prostate, breast, lung, and colon, although most common in the Western world, are least common in the Eastern world. Allopathic medicine commonly practiced currently is only 100 years old. Although traditional medicine has been around for thousands of years, no integration exists between it and allopathic medicine. Ayurveda, the science of long life and one of the most ancient medical systems still practiced on the Indian subcontinent, can be used in combination with modern medicine to provide better treatment of cancer. This review focuses on the ayurvedic concept of the causes of cancer and its linkage with inflammation, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. How ayurvedic medicine can be integrated with allopathic medicine is also discussed in this review.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations216
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Integrative OncologySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207